ML19209B948
| ML19209B948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 02700039 |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1979 |
| From: | Brenner L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910110265 | |
| Download: ML19209B948 (6) | |
Text
,a >
s a
NRC PL'DLIC DOCIDENT A0W August 3, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I'
c, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'a T
In the Matter of NUCLEAR ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Docket No. 27-39 (Sheffield, Illinois-Low-Level
)
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR A PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS The NRC Staff has no objection to the scheduling of a prehearing conference not earlier than September,1979, to discuss.the., fur,ther course of this pro-ceeding. However, the Staff would also not object if any party takes the position that a prehearing not be scheduled prior to a Commission ruling on NEC0's pending motion for reconsideration of the Commission's Notice of Hearing and Memorandum and Order of May 6, ~1979.M On June 19, 1979, the State of Illinois filed amended contentions" which incorporate by reference the State's contentions 1-16 set forth in the June,'
If The State of Illinois has authorized the Staff to represent that the State would also not object to scheduling the prehearing ccnference after the Commission's ruling.
1131 11(
7 910110ce s
1978 " Stipulated Revised Contentions of the State of Illinois." In addition, the State has set forth what purport to be new contentions numbered 17-25.
7, It is the Staff's view that " contentions" 17-25 are nothing more than the State's legal arguments and conclusions. These legal points may be appro-priately argued before the Licensing Board in briefs and/or in proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the parties after the hearing. However, they do not directly raise factual contentions which must be ruled upon for admissibility prior to an evidentiary hearing.
With respect to the State's previously filed contentions 1-16, the mere reference to them does not serve to focus the at"t5nt'fon of the Board or the parties on the specific factual issues still relevant to this proceeding upon which the State would seek to adduce evidence. Almost all of the State's contentions 1-16 deal with the previously proposed expansion of the site and activities related to transportation and receipt and handling of shipments of radioactive waste at Sheffield These matters are moot.
The only real issues left for decision by the Board are the show cause issue referred by the Commission.2/ the related issue of whether the Board should grant NECO's motion to withdr'w its application for license renewal and the 2/
Whether NECO can unilaterally terminate License No. 13-10042-01 for activities at Sheffield without affirmative action by the Commission.
further n: lated issue of what, if any, conditions are 'apprnpriate to impose to protect the public health and safety and the environment. /
7, These issues present mixed questions of law and fact. Much of the legal arguments have already been presented in papers filed before the Board and the Commission. However, these legal arguments may be better organized and ruled upon after an evidentiary hearing presents the Board with an opportunity to determine the facts regarding the short-term situation at the Sheffield site, and what the situation at the site for the longer term would be:
(a) given the site in its present condition, and (b) with remedial and preventa-tive measures taken.
s.
r...,
While portions of a very few of the State's contentions 1-16 would be rele-vant to the above broadly stated matters still before the Board (e.g.,
portions of contentions 2 and 3), the Staff believes that it would be better for the State's specific factual issues to be reframed within the context of the issues set forth above and with recognition of the changed focus of this proceeding. Towards this end, the Staff and the State are each in the process of preparing a technical discussion of concerns regarding the Sheffield site.
It is the Staff's view that these efforts will permit the parties and the Board 3/
See tnis Board's " Memorandum and Order Ruling on Motions to Withdraw Application and Dismiss Proceeding," dated May 3,1979.
In the Staff's view the issue of what conditions may be necessary to assure the public health and safety and protect the environment is relevant whether or not NEC0's motion to withdraw its app
- ation for renewal is granted.
113i 119
to determine what technical matters still relevant to this proceeding will require the presentation of factual evidence.
i s For the reasons stated above, there are no new contentions of fact presented by the State's filing which require a ruling by this Board. However, a prehearing should be scheduled at an appropriate future time (perhaps after the Commission's ruling on NECO's pending motion), to discuss the further course of this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, Lawrence Brenner Counsel 'for NRC S'taff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 3rd day of August, 1979.
1131 120
~
m em
- =
ga ng
USTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of NUCLEAR ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
)
Docket No. 27-39
.o
)
(Sheffield, Illinois Low-Level
)
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SE '! ICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR A PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission internal mail system, this 3rd day of Augus t,1979:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.
Carnelius'J. Ho11erich, Esq.
3320 Estelle Terrace S ate's Attorney
- Whea ton, Maryland 20906
Eardab' County Court House Princeton, Illinois 61356 Dr. Linda W. Little Research Triangle Institute Dean Hansell, Esq.
P. O. Box 12194 Susan N. Sekuler, Esq.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709 State of Illinois Dr. Forrest J. Remick Environmental Control Division t
305 E. Hamilton Avenue 188 West Randolph Street i
Suite 2315
{
State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Chicago, Illinois 60601 j
Scott Madson, Esq.
i Assistant State's Attorney John M. Cannon, Esq.
j 601 South Main Street Mid-America Legal Foundation i
Suite 2245 Princeton, Illinois 61356 l
20 North Wacker Drive i
Chicago, Illinois 60606
/
i D. J. licRae, Esq.
217 West Second Street
}
Kewaunee, Illinois 61443 1
i 1131 121 e
,e r
I,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section*
Board Panel
- Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq'.
Appeal Panel
- Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Ccener, Moore & Corber Washington, D. C.
20555 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1050 Robert Russell, Esq.
Washinoton, D. C.
20006 Johnson, Martin & Russell 10 Park Avenue West Princeton, Illinois 61356 s.
.c....
'n h Lawrence Brenner Counsel for NRC Staff
.4 1131 122
\\.
_